On 3/22/2013 1:53 AM, WM wrote:> On 21 Mrz., 20:14, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:>> On 3/21/2013 8:11 AM, WM wrote:>>>>>>>>> But I am not interested in the set itself. Not at all! My claim is>>> that every member of the set of lines can be removed such that no>>> member remains, but every natural number is contained in the list.>>>> It would be difficult to find WM making>> a better statement of his presumption of>> completed infinities.>>>> One has the empty list.>>>> One has every natural number.>>>> WM confuses "natural number" with "representation>> of natural number" and his intentions to make>> such representations.>>>> That is nonsense. If the natural number is different from the set of> its representations, then one can never have, know, or use it.

In this case, the statement is referring toyour methodology of interpreting crayon marksas standing in representation of natural numbers.The point is that talk of "aims" and "goals" inmaking your crayon marks means that your representationsare, in fact, your intention to make crayon marks.

And, as pointed out to you in other posts, authorialintentions are problematic, and, therefore, rejectedin semantic theories that apply to mathematics.